The Casual Player Enfranchisement Act

[studentloandebt]

The Casual Player Enfranchisement Act

Category: Legislation

Author: Student Loan Debt

Acknowledging that the Legislative Streamlining Act shortened the scrutiny period to from 7 days to 3 days and voting period from 4 days to 3 days;
Observing that not all members of the Democratic Socialist Assembly Congress are active daily, with some only active weekly, and have limited time to play the game due to Real-Life constraints;
Concerned that these members may log on and find that a bill was put forward, voted on, and passed without their knowledge and thus disenfranchises them from the legislative process due to Real-Life constraints that would prevent them from being more active;
Discomforted by the idea that fast-tracking legislation would allow for either faulty bills to not have enough time to have their mistakes realized or that a bill made in the best interest of an individual and not in the best interest of the DSA would be able to slip through given the reduced time to realize the intentions;
Hereby enacts the following legislation:

Chapter I: General Provisions

1. This act maybe cited as the Casual Player Enfranchisement Act or CPE Act.

2. This act shall come into force upon its passage.

Chapter II: The Casual Player Enfranchisement Act

1. In the Congressional Rules and Procedures, Subsection 2.2.1.2

Once a proposal has been posted on the region’s forum, it will move to a viewing and discussion period of three (3) days

    Shall be changed to

Once a proposal has been posted on the region’s forum, it will move to a viewing and discussion period of four (4) days

2. In the Congressional Rules and Procedures, Subsection 2.3.1

1. Following the viewing period, proposals shall then be voted on by the Congress of the Assembly.

2. All Proposals shall be voted on for three (3) days

    Shall be changed to

1. Following the viewing period, proposals shall then be voted on by the Congress of the Assembly.

2. All Proposals shall be voted on for four (4) days

[Alvero]

I don't think 1 day is going to make that big of a difference in whether more players are able to participate. The vast majority of players vote within the first 3 days.

[devintheroaster]

I like this a lot. It extends the total legislative period to over a week, something that greatly benefits casual players. I urge Congress to vote in favor of this bill once it comes to vote.

[studentloandebt]

The bill is not going to bring any harm. An 8 day legislative process does not harm the region or the legislative process compared to a 6 day legislative process. I only see positives from this since it allows those who may not be able log on for a week to be able to see the bill

[Alvero]

Mar 18, 2020 3:15:16 GMT studentloandebt said:

The bill is not going to bring any harm. An 8 day legislative process does not harm the region or the legislative process compared to a 6 day legislative process. I only see positives from this since it allows those who may not be able log on for a week to be able to see the bill

Well it extends the voting process. I thought the whole point was that we wanted to shorten the voting process, which yes comes at the expense of a few more inactive players missing the voting period. I don't see what value extending this adds. I think if we have a problem with some of our more inactive players missing that vote, it makes more sense to extend it back to the original 7 days.

[studentloandebt]

Mar 18, 2020 3:22:09 GMT Alvero said:

Well it extends the voting process. I thought the whole point was that we wanted to shorten the voting process, which yes comes at the expense of a few more inactive players missing the voting period. I don't see what value extending this adds. I think if we have a problem with some of our more inactive players missing that vote, it makes more sense to extend it back to the original 7 days.

We agree that shorter periods is better, and this does keep the voting process shortened, but this does address those who are casual players and not daily players. An additional day may not be much for the daily players, but for those who cannot be on as often as others, like some who are only on during the weekends and such, the extra days allow them to be able to see a legislation and have a say before it ends. A extra day to discuss the bill and an extra day to vote is not harmful. I could only see it being harmful to a player who might want to slip through a bill that isn't in the DSA's best interest.

In the end, I'd prefer we don't disenfranchise players and don't keep them from playing. Acknowledging the value of shorter periods, I think a 4-4 day period is a better balance of the two than a 3-3 day.

[Alvero]

Mar 18, 2020 3:46:55 GMT studentloandebt said:

Mar 18, 2020 3:22:09 GMT Alvero said:

Well it extends the voting process. I thought the whole point was that we wanted to shorten the voting process, which yes comes at the expense of a few more inactive players missing the voting period. I don't see what value extending this adds. I think if we have a problem with some of our more inactive players missing that vote, it makes more sense to extend it back to the original 7 days.

We agree that shorter periods is better, and this does keep the voting process shortened, but this does address those who are casual players and not daily players. An additional day may not be much for the daily players, but for those who cannot be on as often as others, like some who are only on during the weekends and such, the extra days allow them to be able to see a legislation and have a say before it ends. A extra day to discuss the bill and an extra day to vote is not harmful. I could only see it being harmful to a player who might want to slip through a bill that isn't in the DSA's best interest.

In the end, I'd prefer we don't disenfranchise players and don't keep them from playing. Acknowledging the value of shorter periods, I think a 4-4 day period is a better balance of the two than a 3-3 day.

I guess we're going to have to agree to disagree here. I just don't think that extending it by a day makes it noticeably more accessible to casual players. Realistically we got like a couple people that voted after 3 days, and I don't think it makes sense to extend the process for that few amount of players.

[Deleted]

I think that a voting period of three days is perfectly reasonable, but I have no problem with it being anywhere between 2-4 days. Let us also remember that we don't have to work in terms of days alone. We can do days and a half if we really want a compromise. The scrutiny period should be kept the same in my opinion, but I am more sympathetic with lengthening it then the voting period. The voting period should be shorter than the scrutiny period. However, it might be a good idea to create some way of cutting it short if discussion has truly finished. I would like to pose the following questions:
1. Have Members of Congress ever voiced concern that they missed a vote?
2. What is the average turnout as stands?
3. How has turnout been affected by previous adjustments to voting periods?
4. How has discussion been affected by previous adjustments to scrutiny periods?
5. How much of a priority is a streamlined process compared to voter enfranchisement?
6. Do we want to adopt a general principle of no one left behind?

[Deleted]

Student Loan Debt's answers(via Discord server):

"1. Have Members of Congress ever voiced concern that they missed a vote?
To my knowledge, no. Since the LSA has not been around for more than a month, it has not been tested. These are mainly concerns. However, Wileyshire is a player who has voiced how the shorten time can have a direct effect on him.
2. What is the average turnout as stands?
I can’t really say. Maybe around 10 for most legislation but I can’t really remember at this current moment.
3. How has turnout been affected by previous adjustments to voting periods?
To my knowledge, the LSA is the first time we adjusted voting periods, so no prior data to analyze
4. How has discussion been affected by previous adjustments to scrutiny periods?
Same answer as above
5. How much of a priority is a streamlined process compared to voter enfranchisement?
Personally, I’m fine with the 7-7 period, although do see why people would want a reduced period. However, I do think there’s a line where, when it gets too short, too many people are disenfranchised. Having it too short doesn’t take into account that they are some people who are only on weekly and I think that kind of disenfranchisement is something that needs to be addressed.
6. Do we want to adopt a general principle of no one left behind?
If I am interpreting that correctly, that would result in a pretty long period of like 10-10 or 15-15. I think if you are not active to the point where you are not on at least weekly, then you are not an active member. I think priority should be placed more on the active than the inactive, although not to the point where the casual player has their vote restricted"

[Alvero]

I don't think I have anything to add to what Dank has said, I think that's pretty accurate. But in response to what Student said:

Mar 20, 2020 1:04:32 GMT @funnyandcreativename said:

Student Loan Debt's answers(via Discord server):

"1. Have Members of Congress ever voiced concern that they missed a vote?
To my knowledge, no. Since the LSA has not been around for more than a month, it has not been tested. These are mainly concerns. However, Wileyshire is a player who has voiced how the shorten time can have a direct effect on him.
2. What is the average turnout as stands?
I can’t really say. Maybe around 10 for most legislation but I can’t really remember at this current moment.
3. How has turnout been affected by previous adjustments to voting periods?
To my knowledge, the LSA is the first time we adjusted voting periods, so no prior data to analyze
4. How has discussion been affected by previous adjustments to scrutiny periods?
Same answer as above
5. How much of a priority is a streamlined process compared to voter enfranchisement?
Personally, I’m fine with the 7-7 period, although do see why people would want a reduced period. However, I do think there’s a line where, when it gets too short, too many people are disenfranchised. Having it too short doesn’t take into account that they are some people who are only on weekly and I think that kind of disenfranchisement is something that needs to be addressed.
6. Do we want to adopt a general principle of no one left behind?
If I am interpreting that correctly, that would result in a pretty long period of like 10-10 or 15-15. I think if you are not active to the point where you are not on at least weekly, then you are not an active member. I think priority should be placed more on the active than the inactive, although not to the point where the casual player has their vote restricted"

If LSA hasn't been tested, then why are we rushing to change it already? Why not wait for a few laws to pass and gauge how it's impacting the voters? You see this is the problem I have with this law, it's baseless. There's no justification for it. When we shortened the voting time initially, we knew that for the 1 or 2 inactive players that voted during that extended period, they would have a harder time voting, but we decided as a region, we need to streamline our legislative process which yes will make it hard for those 1 or 2 inactive players. I don't see what value extending the current voting period adds, at best we'll get 1 maybe 2 more players who vote. 

[studentloandebt]

Mar 20, 2020 21:01:26 GMT Atma Kathina Vela said:

Mar 20, 2020 18:53:32 GMT Alvero said:

I don't think I have anything to add to what Dank has said, I think that's pretty accurate. But in response to what Student said:
If LSA hasn't been tested, then why are we rushing to change it already? Why not wait for a few laws to pass and gauge how it's impacting the voters? You see this is the problem I have with this law, it's baseless. There's no justification for it. When we shortened the voting time initially, we knew that for the 1 or 2 inactive players that voted during that extended period, they would have a harder time voting, but we decided as a region, we need to streamline our legislative process which yes will make it hard for those 1 or 2 inactive players. I don't see what value extending the current voting period adds, at best we'll get 1 maybe 2 more players who vote. 

As well, the whole "untested" claim is completely false and has to purposefully ignore that an entire charter amendment got through in 3 days with a healthy amount of votes (a whole 29), a vote count which didn't even really go up on the 3rd day of voting, mind you. And the NSLeft Solidarity Pact amendment as well, all the people who could have cared to vote on that did so on 3 days with no problem. And here we are with 2 more bills that go up for vote later today, this one has gotten a statistically unlikely amount of discussion in those 3 days already and you can be guaranteed or your money back that all the people who would care to vote on it will do so no problem at all in 3 days.

Not only does the basis of this require completely imagining a problem that doesn't exist at all to any extent, that problem that it's imagining doesn't even have a basis in reality. In fact, the exact opposite is proving true: no one is actually missing anything.

I answered this immediately after I had a big dinner and was physically and mentally tired in my bed. No purposeful ignorance occurred here

[studentloandebt]

Mar 20, 2020 18:53:32 GMT Alvero said:

I don't think I have anything to add to what Dank has said, I think that's pretty accurate. But in response to what Student said:

Mar 20, 2020 1:04:32 GMT @funnyandcreativename said:

Student Loan Debt's answers(via Discord server):

"1. Have Members of Congress ever voiced concern that they missed a vote?
To my knowledge, no. Since the LSA has not been around for more than a month, it has not been tested. These are mainly concerns. However, Wileyshire is a player who has voiced how the shorten time can have a direct effect on him.
2. What is the average turnout as stands?
I can’t really say. Maybe around 10 for most legislation but I can’t really remember at this current moment.
3. How has turnout been affected by previous adjustments to voting periods?
To my knowledge, the LSA is the first time we adjusted voting periods, so no prior data to analyze
4. How has discussion been affected by previous adjustments to scrutiny periods?
Same answer as above
5. How much of a priority is a streamlined process compared to voter enfranchisement?
Personally, I’m fine with the 7-7 period, although do see why people would want a reduced period. However, I do think there’s a line where, when it gets too short, too many people are disenfranchised. Having it too short doesn’t take into account that they are some people who are only on weekly and I think that kind of disenfranchisement is something that needs to be addressed.
6. Do we want to adopt a general principle of no one left behind?
If I am interpreting that correctly, that would result in a pretty long period of like 10-10 or 15-15. I think if you are not active to the point where you are not on at least weekly, then you are not an active member. I think priority should be placed more on the active than the inactive, although not to the point where the casual player has their vote restricted"

If LSA hasn't been tested, then why are we rushing to change it already? Why not wait for a few laws to pass and gauge how it's impacting the voters? You see this is the problem I have with this law, it's baseless. There's no justification for it. When we shortened the voting time initially, we knew that for the 1 or 2 inactive players that voted during that extended period, they would have a harder time voting, but we decided as a region, we need to streamline our legislative process which yes will make it hard for those 1 or 2 inactive players. I don't see what value extending the current voting period adds, at best we'll get 1 maybe 2 more players who vote. 

It's not a rush to change it. These were complaints I made as well as other made when the LSA was up for scrutiny and no edit to the proposed bill was made. I wrote this amendment because I had issues with the bill at the very beginning that were not implemented. If I have an issue, I'm not gonna just "Wait until a later day" or something.

[Alvero]

Mar 20, 2020 22:08:18 GMT studentloandebt said:

Mar 20, 2020 18:53:32 GMT Alvero said:

I don't think I have anything to add to what Dank has said, I think that's pretty accurate. But in response to what Student said:
If LSA hasn't been tested, then why are we rushing to change it already? Why not wait for a few laws to pass and gauge how it's impacting the voters? You see this is the problem I have with this law, it's baseless. There's no justification for it. When we shortened the voting time initially, we knew that for the 1 or 2 inactive players that voted during that extended period, they would have a harder time voting, but we decided as a region, we need to streamline our legislative process which yes will make it hard for those 1 or 2 inactive players. I don't see what value extending the current voting period adds, at best we'll get 1 maybe 2 more players who vote. 

It's not a rush to change it. These were complaints I made as well as other made when the LSA was up for scrutiny and no edit to the proposed bill was made. I wrote this amendment because I had issues with the bill at the very beginning that were not implemented. If I have an issue, I'm not gonna just "Wait until a later day" or something.

The problem is that you haven't even waited to see if the issues you had were founded. And based on what Dank said, it looks like what has been shown so far is that it isn't. I mean I understand you have your issues and want to share them, and you have that right. I just think it's more based on principle and not based on fact. If we're looking at what's been shown so far, increasing it by one day will have virtually no effect on the number of people voting, like basically one or two more people might vote, meanwhile you would be extending the process for 2 days. One thing that hasn't been brought up is that extending the time period like that would be a negative if we enter another crisis and need to pass emergency legislation. Those 2 days would be very significant then.

[Deleted]

If anyone was wondering for whatever reason, I personally would like to extend the scrutiny period by one day, and shorten the voting period by one day.

[studentloandebt]

Mar 20, 2020 22:33:44 GMT @funnyandcreativename said:

If anyone was wondering for whatever reason, I personally would like to extend the scrutiny period by one day, and shorten the voting period by one day.

Why would you want a 2 day voting period instead of 3?

[studentloandebt]

Mar 20, 2020 22:14:00 GMT Alvero said:

Mar 20, 2020 22:08:18 GMT studentloandebt said:

It's not a rush to change it. These were complaints I made as well as other made when the LSA was up for scrutiny and no edit to the proposed bill was made. I wrote this amendment because I had issues with the bill at the very beginning that were not implemented. If I have an issue, I'm not gonna just "Wait until a later day" or something.

The problem is that you haven't even waited to see if the issues you had were founded. And based on what Dank said, it looks like what has been shown so far is that it isn't. I mean I understand you have your issues and want to share them, and you have that right. I just think it's more based on principle and not based on fact. If we're looking at what's been shown so far, increasing it by one day will have virtually no effect on the number of people voting, like basically one or two more people might vote, meanwhile you would be extending the process for 2 days. One thing that hasn't been brought up is that extending the time period like that would be a negative if we enter another crisis and need to pass emergency legislation. Those 2 days would be very significant then.

I don't think an emergency argument would really support your position either. If there is an emergency, 6 days is a huge amount of time to wait compared to, like, a 1 day thing (which I'm sure we both agree wouldn't be good to do). However, the rest of your argument still stands

[Alvero]

Mar 20, 2020 23:08:50 GMT studentloandebt said:

Mar 20, 2020 22:14:00 GMT Alvero said:

The problem is that you haven't even waited to see if the issues you had were founded. And based on what Dank said, it looks like what has been shown so far is that it isn't. I mean I understand you have your issues and want to share them, and you have that right. I just think it's more based on principle and not based on fact. If we're looking at what's been shown so far, increasing it by one day will have virtually no effect on the number of people voting, like basically one or two more people might vote, meanwhile you would be extending the process for 2 days. One thing that hasn't been brought up is that extending the time period like that would be a negative if we enter another crisis and need to pass emergency legislation. Those 2 days would be very significant then.

I don't think an emergency argument would really support your position either. If there is an emergency, 6 days is a huge amount of time to wait compared to, like, a 1 day thing (which I'm sure we both agree wouldn't be good to do). However, the rest of your argument still stands

Sure, but the reason we are doing 3 days instead of 1 is because that's when nearly all people vote, I mean there's a specific reason that 3 days was chosen. In the case of passing emergency legislation, I'm sure we could both agree 6 days is better than 8 days.

[devintheroaster]

Mar 21, 2020 0:37:59 GMT Alvero said:

Mar 20, 2020 23:08:50 GMT studentloandebt said:

I don't think an emergency argument would really support your position either. If there is an emergency, 6 days is a huge amount of time to wait compared to, like, a 1 day thing (which I'm sure we both agree wouldn't be good to do). However, the rest of your argument still stands

Sure, but the reason we are doing 3 days instead of 1 is because that's when nearly all people vote, I mean there's a specific reason that 3 days was chosen. In the case of passing emergency legislation, I'm sure we could both agree 6 days is better than 8 days.

I don't feel that an issue coming up that is urgent is grounds for us to harm the voting rights of others, at the previous legislation had. While this is not as much as I personally would like, I feel the scrutiny+voting period should be at least 7 days as to allow weekly users to either vote on it or to see it while it is scrutiny and make comments. This makes it so that those users cannot even do both, but it at least allows them to be able to do one or other other while the length as is makes it so there is a chance it can completely miss them. We need to have our casual - but still active - users in mind here. 

[Alvero]

Mar 21, 2020 2:20:41 GMT devintheroaster said:

Mar 21, 2020 0:37:59 GMT Alvero said:

Sure, but the reason we are doing 3 days instead of 1 is because that's when nearly all people vote, I mean there's a specific reason that 3 days was chosen. In the case of passing emergency legislation, I'm sure we could both agree 6 days is better than 8 days.

I don't feel that an issue coming up that is urgent is grounds for us to harm the voting rights of others, at the previous legislation had. While this is not as much as I personally would like, I feel the scrutiny+voting period should be at least 7 days as to allow weekly users to either vote on it or to see it while it is scrutiny and make comments. This makes it so that those users cannot even do both, but it at least allows them to be able to do one or other other while the length as is makes it so there is a chance it can completely miss them. We need to have our casual - but still active - users in mind here. 

I don't think we're harming the voting rights of others though. In a perfect world, I would love to have the process go as long as needed to make sure everyone that wants to vote can, but I don't think it's fair to the active players to slow the whole process down for the 1 or 2 people that will vote during an extended voting period. I think if you aren't on NationStates within the 6 days we have this process take place, I'm sorry but you're bound to miss some stuff. That comes with the nature of being a less active player. Again realistically we are talking about a very small amount of players. The 1 or 2 players I keep mentioning is not hyperbole, that's about how many vote during an extended voting period if that.